The same respondent in the Danone.co.in case also just lost the domain
Danone.in.
Again, the respondent claimed it was acting on behalf of a client who had disappeared, and that the respondent did not have the client's full contact details. The respondent also claimed that its client had intended to set up a Danone fan site.
The Arbitrator stated that:
(1) The respondent did not take due care when it went ahead and registered the domain 'danone.in' despite not having full contact details for the client.
(2) The story about a fan site for a 'company' did not inspire confidence as fan sites usually involve film personalities, pop singers, celebrities etc., and not a company. Even if a company fan site was intended, the respondent would have needed the consent of the actual company.
Another thing that hurt the respondent's defence was this email they sent to the complainant/complainant's lawyers:
Quote:
we have registered domain to develop a website for Danone Fan Club. Now that Danone itself wants this domain, we will be eager to develop their website. Being in the development from last 10 years we have developed many websites. A strong profile of the
group like this will enrich our customer list and side by side compensate us.
|
The Arbitrator pointed out that the complainant's lawyers were also not above board as, despite requests by the respondent, they would not provide evidence that they were authorized to act on behalf of Danone.
The complainant sought costs, but this was denied:
Quote:
|
The Complainants have claimed from the Respondents a sum of Rs. 170000,00 towards its attorney fees, procedural costs and damages, but no details of the same have been provided , hence this Tribunal is unable to accede to the said claim of the Complainants.
|